RONAN -v- THE STATE CORONER [2000] WASC 260

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASC 260
Case No:	CIV:2389/2000	Heard:	18 OCTOBER 2000
Coram:	ANDERSON J	Delivered:	18/10/00
No of pages:	4	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application allowed
PDF Version

Parties:	GWENDOLINE MAY RONAN THE STATE CORONER
Catchwords:	Coroner Aborigines Application for an order that no post-mortem be performed Discretionary order No suspicious circumstances Relevance of Aboriginal culture and spiritual beliefs Relevance of public interest
Legislation:	Coroners Act 1996 (WA)
Case References:	Green v Johnston (1995) 2 VR 176 Abernethy v Deltz (1996) 29 NSWLR 701 Magdziarz v Heffey, unreported; SCt of Vic; Library No 7635 of 1995; 3 October 1995 Re Death of Simon Unchango (Jnr); Ex parte Simon Unchango (Snr) (1997) 95 A Crim R 65

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : RONAN -v- THE STATE CORONER [2000] WASC 260 CORAM : ANDERSON J HEARD : 18 OCTOBER 2000 DELIVERED : 18 OCTOBER 2000 FILE NO/S : CIV 2389 of 2000 BETWEEN : GWENDOLINE MAY RONAN

Plaintiff

AND

THE STATE CORONER

Defendant

Catchwords:

Coroner - Aborigines - Application for an order that no post-mortem be performed - Discretionary order - No suspicious circumstances - Relevance of Aboriginal culture and spiritual beliefs - Relevance of public interest

Legislation:

Coroners Act 1996 (WA)

Result:

Application allowed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Ms C P Crawford

Defendant : Ms C J Thatcher

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Legal Aid Commission

Defendant : State Crown Solicitor

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Green v Johnston (1995) 2 VR 176

Case(s) also cited:

Abernethy v Deltz (1996) 29 NSWLR 701
Magdziarz v Heffey, unreported; SCt of Vic; Library No 7635 of 1995; 3 October 1995
Re Death of Simon Unchango (Jnr); Ex parte Simon Unchango (Snr) (1997) 95 A Crim R 65

(Page 3)

1 ANDERSON J: In this case I am prepared to make an order that no post-mortem examination be performed on the body of Jemaine John Tye. My reasons are that there are no suspicious circumstances known to the police surrounding this death. This was an apparently healthy infant, a well-nourished, well-cared-for infant, whose death is unexplained. That ordinarily would, of itself, call for a post-mortem examination including an autopsy in order for the Coroner to carry out properly his coronial duties.

2 In this case there are some signs consistent with an asphyxiation process. Internal examination of organs by autopsy might confirm that this was a case of death by asphyxiation. There is a public interest in knowing if this was a case of death by asphyxiation, even assuming that to have been accidental. If there was an accidental asphyxiation, the most likely cause, it seems to me on all of the known facts, was overlay whilst the child was asleep.

3 I say that because there is no evidence of foul play, there is no evidence of abuse, there is no evidence of neglect, there are no external signs…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Ronan v The State Coroner

Details

AGLC: Ronan v The State Coroner [2000] WASC 260
Case: [2000] WASC 260
Decision Date: 18 OCTOBER 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ronan v The State Coroner involved a dispute over the right of the deceased's family to prevent a post-mortem examination on the body of an Aboriginal man. The family sought to rely on Aboriginal cultural beliefs and the absence of suspicious circumstances to argue against the Coroner's decision to proceed with the examination. The matter was brought before the court to determine whether the Coroner had the discretion to refuse the family's request under the relevant statutory framework.

The court was required to consider the legal principles governing the Coroner's discretion in ordering a post-mortem examination, particularly in cases where the deceased is Aboriginal and where there are cultural and spiritual objections to such examinations. The court also had to balance the family's right to respect for their cultural beliefs against the public interest in determining the cause of death, especially in the absence of suspicious circumstances. This involved interpreting statutory provisions and assessing the relevance and weight to be given to Aboriginal cultural considerations in the Coroner's decision-making process.

In its decision, the court found that the Coroner had the discretion to consider the family's request and the cultural and spiritual beliefs of the deceased in deciding whether to order a post-mortem examination. The court emphasised that while the public interest in determining the cause of death was important, it was not paramount in the absence of suspicious circumstances. The court held that the Coroner had appropriately exercised their discretion by taking into account the family's request and the cultural considerations, and ultimately determined that the Coroner had not erred in refusing the family's application. The court allowed the application, affirming the Coroner's decision to proceed with the post-mortem examination.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application allowed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.